Mandeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-10567-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.03.2025 Mandeep Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Sumit Dua, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.38 dated 16.02.2024, registered under Sections 406, 420 IPC and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professional (Regulation) Act, 2014, at Police Station Dasuya, Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur.

2.

On 24.02.2025, the following order was passed:- "XX XX XX XX Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that coaccused, namely, Maninder Singh alias Sunny has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 21.02.2025 passed in CRMM-50103 of 2024 titled as Maninder Singh @ Sunny vs. State of Punjab. Learned counsel submits that the allegation in the FIR (supra) is that the petitioner along with co-accused has charged Rs.1.23 lacs from the complainant for providing their services in facilitating the

complainant, in obtaining Visa of Dubai. Thereafter, a compromise was effected between the parties and a cheque was given to the complainant, however, when the complainant presented the cheque, the same was dishonoured. Learned counsel further refers to Annexure P-2 and submits that the entire amount in question has been duly paid by the petitioner to the complainant. Adjourned to 24.03.2025.

In the meantime, keeping in view the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2010 SCC OnLine SC 137; Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State of NCT Delhi 2020 (1) RCR (Criminal) 833, at the first instance, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and on doing so or in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bond to the satisfaction of the Investigating/Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating/Arresting Officer and abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482 (2) of BNSS.

If the Investigating/Arresting Officer does not permit the petitioner to join the investigation, the petitioner would appear before the Illaqa Magistrate, who would then summon the Investigating/Arresting Officer and direct him to join the petitioner in investigation, in terms of the order of this Court.

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case

and the trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by observations of this Court."

3.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Sarabjit Singh, at the very outset, informs the Court that the petitioner has joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required. 4.

In view of the statement of learned State counsel, order dated 24.02.2025 is hereby made absolute. The petitioner shall abide by the terms and conditions envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS (erstwhile Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). 5.

The petition stands disposed of.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 24.03.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No